You are here

Attorneys: Adoptive couple did not initiate lawsuit against biological father

Attorneys: Adoptive couple did not initiate lawsuit against biological father

In this Aug. 6 file photo, Veronica, the 4-year-old Cherokee girl at the center of an adoption dispute, smiles in a bathroom of the Cherokee Nation Jack Brown Center in Tahlequah. AP Photo/Tulsa World, Mike Simons, File

Contrary to recent reports, attorneys for the adoptive parents of Veronica Capobianco say the couple has not initiated a separate lawsuit to recoup legal fees from the girl’s biological father or the Cherokee Nation.

According to an Associated Press article on Monday, a petition was filed by Matt and Melanie Capobianco in South Carolina on Sept. 9, while 4-year-old Veronica’s biological father, Dusten Brown, was appealing court orders to place the girl back with the Capobiancos.

But spokespersons for the Capobiancos say otherwise.

“The Capobiancos have not initiated a separate lawsuit to sue Mr. Brown or the Cherokee Nation. The contempt proceedings were initiated by the South Carolina family court for expenses associated in response to a willful violation of that courts orders,” the attorneys said in a written statement. “In the pending contempt proceedings, the Capobiancos’ attorneys are seeking to recoup fees and expenses directly caused by Mr. Brown’s and the Cherokee Nation’s willful defiance of the orders of the South Carolina courts beginning on August 4.”

Veronica’s biological Bartlesville mother chose the Capobiancos to adopt Veronica in 2009 and the Capobiancos raised the girl until Brown, who is a member of the Cherokee Nation, gained custody under the Indian Child Welfare Act in December 2011.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ended with the court ruling that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply because Brown never had custody of Veronica and had abandoned her before birth. A South Carolina court was asked to make a determination on Veronica’s future and her adoption by the Capobiancos was ultimately finalized.

Brown, who was attending National Guard training at the time, failed to show up for a court-ordered meeting on Aug. 4 to begin the transition of Veronica back to the Capobiancos. He was charged with custodial interference and is set to appear in court on that charge Thursday.

Brown went on to fight the adoption in various courts for nearly two months, before handing Veronica over to the Capobiancos on Sept. 23.

Attorneys for the Capobiancos also addressed recent comments by Brown’s attorney, Shannon Jones, that Brown was under no legal duty to comply with orders from South Carolina courts to return Veronica to the Capobiancos following two orders of the South Carolina Supreme Court rejecting his legal position.

“It is indefensible and dangerous for any lawyer to suggest that a biological parent may ignore a court custody order with impunity simply because he has not yet exhausted all possible appeals or other court challenges,” the attorneys stated.

The attorneys noted that when South Carolina courts ordered the adoptive couple to hand over Veronica to Brown, in December 2011, the couple voluntarily complied.

“They followed the rule of law, despite their pending appeals and their total devastation at having to hand over their daughter to a biological father Veronica didn’t know — a man who had abandoned Veronica before birth and who testified that he wanted nothing to do with her so long as her birth mother took complete responsibility for her.”

The attorneys went on to state that Brown’s attorneys recognized Brown was legally required to return Veronica to her parents by requesting a stay from the South Carolina court itself and the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Significantly, not one of the highly-regarded Supreme Court lawyers who represented Mr. Brown and the Tribe has defended the willful refusal to obey the South Carolina orders between August 4, 2013, and September 23, 2013. Mr. Brown’s conduct in flouting South Carolina’s legal system was particularly egregious because he had physical custody of Veronica only because of an order, later determined to be erroneous, of the South Carolina court,” the attorneys stated.

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.

Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.

IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.

Do not post:

Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.

Obscene, explicit, or racist language.

Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.

Personal attacks, insults or threats.

The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.

Comments unrelated to the story.

If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.